Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
STAR RATING
Posts
geodude
View playlists
Closeditch the stars completely. talk about a cliché
also
also
author=Darken
The less points there are, the moreuniversal and simpleAMBIGUOUS the rating system becomes.
Lennon
88
author=geodudeauthor=Darken
The less points there are, the moreuniversal and simpleAMBIGUOUS the rating system becomes.
This pretty much. I am beating a dead horse but 10 points gives you a better impression of the quality.
beat that horse. also my position is a precise score without stars where am i on your chart kenton huh ??
author=kentona
on a more serious note, we seem to have 3 positions being advocated:
1) No quatitative scoring at all
2) Imprecise score
3) Higher precision score
here you go
Strangeluv
2787
Unrelated, but why did you guys ditch the "blurb" in the Games section? You can only view the blurbs if you click the game profile now, unless I'm wrong.
Strangeluv
2787
Oh wait.. I was wrong. I could swear there was a time not too long ago I couldn't see those. Oh well
EDIT - No wait, I meant, why did you all remove them from the game profiles
EDIT - No wait, I meant, why did you all remove them from the game profiles
Umm... I don't like having to review a game to raise it's score. (Or to lower it... No, I think reviews is perfect for it.)
I don't like it because I'm an awful writer, and I'm too shy (and afraid of flaming ROFL) to write a review. >:
And I bet there are many more people like me out there. And people that are too lazy, either. (I don't blame them.)
BUT the "like" system should be unrelated to Facebook / open only to members. (?)
I don't like it because I'm an awful writer, and I'm too shy (and afraid of flaming ROFL) to write a review. >:
And I bet there are many more people like me out there. And people that are too lazy, either. (I don't blame them.)
BUT the "like" system should be unrelated to Facebook / open only to members. (?)
author=StrangeluvOh, that. yeah, WIP removed them because of some weird reasoning. Something to do with the customization of the titlebar area. Like this page http://rpgmaker.net/games/2422/
Oh wait.. I was wrong. I could swear there was a time not too long ago I couldn't see those. Oh well
EDIT - No wait, I meant, why did you all remove them from the game profiles
yeah, I miss seeing the blurb on my gameprofiles too.
I'm going to throw in my lot for the "no quantitative scoring" side. Because casual browsers will only ever see high-scoring games, it allows (or forces) reviewers to determine the visibility that a title will receive. I think the review system is fine, but that it shouldn't have an official numerical scoring system. Reviewers would be more than able to write a score in, but it wouldn't be visible outside of that review.
author=Saileriusit doesn't force them to do anything. it just leaves them with a morass of indistinguishable games. and then they leave.
I'm going to throw in my lot for the "no quantitative scoring" side. Because casual browsers will only ever see high-scoring games, it allows (or forces) reviewers to determine the visibility that a title will receive. I think the review system is fine, but that it shouldn't have an official numerical scoring system. Reviewers would be more than able to write a score in, but it wouldn't be visible outside of that review.
I am in the 3) camp (more information, the better)
Lennon
88
I think if we have a Like system it should be the same as on Youtube. Like/Dislikes show up next to or below the name of the game or something. (And yes, we should have dislikes if we have likes) They shouldn't affect the score either, since it isn't fair to have weight. If you want to affect the score then write a review.
Also, regardless of if they affected the score or not, they should be limited somehow. Like, you can only do it if you're a member for a certain time, or only so many per certain time period.
Really, I don't like the idea of it at all, it just seems like a scapegoat for lazy people who don't want to review the game.
EDIT: Also, I don't see anything wrong with having the highest rated games being the most visible to casual browsers. Last time I checked, that encourages people to come back to site/join, since they see some of the best stuff on here.
Also, regardless of if they affected the score or not, they should be limited somehow. Like, you can only do it if you're a member for a certain time, or only so many per certain time period.
Really, I don't like the idea of it at all, it just seems like a scapegoat for lazy people who don't want to review the game.
EDIT: Also, I don't see anything wrong with having the highest rated games being the most visible to casual browsers. Last time I checked, that encourages people to come back to site/join, since they see some of the best stuff on here.
author=kentonaIf I had run a google search for "best rpg maker games" and stumbled across this site, I would sort by highest review score and pick out the top game(s) with the prettiest images. It doesn't matter how much information is visible, the average player only cares about raw score.author=Saileriusit doesn't force them to do anything. it just leaves them with a morass of indistinguishable games. and then they leave.
I'm going to throw in my lot for the "no quantitative scoring" side. Because casual browsers will only ever see high-scoring games, it allows (or forces) reviewers to determine the visibility that a title will receive. I think the review system is fine, but that it shouldn't have an official numerical scoring system. Reviewers would be more than able to write a score in, but it wouldn't be visible outside of that review.
I am in the 3) camp (more information, the better)
EDIT in response to Lennon: Except highest-rated doesn't necessarily mean best. It means highest-rated. If there's a mediocre game which one person (who may or may not be the creator's friend) really likes and they give it a 5* rating while no one else is interested in playing it, that game sits there with a perfect rating even though it may only be comparable to 2-3* games. Considering that as the number of reviews a game gets increases, its score tends to 3*, this means that the most played games will not be the most visible.
author=Saileriusthus give them more easily-digestible information. Like download counts, pageview counts, impression scores, critiques, higher-precision scoring.author=kentonaIf I had run a google search for "best rpg maker games" and stumbled across this site, I would sort by highest review score and pick out the top game(s) with the prettiest images. It doesn't matter how much information is visible, the average player only cares about raw score.author=Saileriusit doesn't force them to do anything. it just leaves them with a morass of indistinguishable games. and then they leave.
I'm going to throw in my lot for the "no quantitative scoring" side. Because casual browsers will only ever see high-scoring games, it allows (or forces) reviewers to determine the visibility that a title will receive. I think the review system is fine, but that it shouldn't have an official numerical scoring system. Reviewers would be more than able to write a score in, but it wouldn't be visible outside of that review.
I am in the 3) camp (more information, the better)
Without a score, they would then just sift through looking for games with the prettiest images/clever names/intriguing blurb. I don't see how this is better than games with the prettiest images/clever names/intriguing blurb + average score.
